You must log in or register to comment.

F0rtysxity t1_j6sz7nq wrote

“The wheel changed the world. The steam engine could destroy it.”

I’m not saying that AI won’t. I’m just saying we’ve had these headlines before.


CaringRationalist t1_j6utw26 wrote

It's not comparable though. Technology before now only replaced physical power, something humans never had in spades anyway.

Now, AI is poised to surpass our intellectual power, which is our strongest evolutionary tool. Unless we drastically redistribute the gains from AI in a way that the global right would absolutely revolt against, AI is guaranteed to lead to widespread unemployment and poverty the likes of which will make the great depression look tame.


mouserat_hat t1_j6v0ski wrote

Pardon me, dear scholar, but I think our strongest evolutionary tools are our Pee-Pees and our Hoo-Hahs.


CaringRationalist t1_j6vq5ch wrote

Can't tell if this is a joke, but considering that's not a unique characteristic of our species and that asexual reproduction exists, on the chance that it isn't a joke that's silly AF.


jazzageguy t1_j6wesgh wrote

"Technology before now only replaced physical power"

You typed those words into a computer. They've been around for 70 years. They don't replace physical power. They evolve about a million times faster than we do, yet they don't seem to be trying to eliminate or impoverish us.

"...guaranteed to lead to widespread unemployment and poverty..."

Just as mechanical looms were sure to impoverish everybody. And every other invention. They've said that about technology for centuries. Some artifact in our brains leads us to imagine imminent doom. Dial phones, farm machinery, every invention was going to be catastrophic. But wow, no doom! It turns out all that scary tech is great for our species. Unemployment? Jobs are both more numerous and more rewarding when technology takes care of the grunt work. The record is crystal clear on this. There's the occasional problematic invention (nuclear bombs and internal combustion engines spring to mind), but the bombs prevented a lot of wars and cars improve standards of living until we cook the planet.

AI will not replace our intellectual power but augment it. That's what tech does. It makes us richer, not poorer. Do you really imagine us in an existential evolutionary struggle for survival with the machines we build to sell each other cheeseburgers and make restaurant reservations? Competing for what sort of resource? It's a curious perspective. The grim future you imagine sounds like the alt-right nonsense about "replacement" by purportedly inferior ethnicities.


Geog28 t1_j6vdit9 wrote

We don't have nor is it expected to have the type of A.I that you're talking about anytime soon.


CaringRationalist t1_j6vpzqk wrote

We already have it. AI is replacing some art functions, is better at finding new oil reserves than PHDs, can nearly handle shipping, and will likely be able to replace most of the accounting and finance industries by the end of the decade


Geog28 t1_j6x3s7n wrote

We might have some AI capable of some really cool stuff. But none of it is actual intellectual thought let alone some that surpasses our own. It's all just really good pattern recognition but not something that is able to actually solve problems.


therealxris t1_j70zqx8 wrote

AI can’t surpass shit. It only spits back what we tell it and it’s not very good

Chat gpt for example gets so much basic stuff just blatantly wrong that no ai is taking over anything any time soon. And thinking they have any actual intellect is just wrong.


CaringRationalist t1_j7254vq wrote

Compare Chat GPT to AI 5 years ago.

You're just wrong. AI is literally already replacing sophisticated labor, and companies are pumping billions more into their development than they were before specifically because of the positive results.


therealxris t1_j794gxo wrote

What you said doesn’t contradict what I said though. Chat gpt is only as good as the data it’s fed and it can easily be fed wrong data that it will confidently repeat as fact. Yes people are using it for labor but that doesn’t mean it’s smart or self learning. I’m not wrong, you just don’t understand the tech.


CaringRationalist t1_j796pps wrote

And humans can't be fed the wrong data that they confidently repeat as fact?...

I think I understand it just fine given that my original claim was about it being smart enough to replace our intellectual labor, which you've now agreed to, and not that it was either self learning or perfect.


therealxris t1_j7a38eu wrote

No. You are wrong. Again.

The part of your post that I disagreed with is, and I quote:

>"AI is poised to surpass our intellectual power"

I still disagree with this. It is still a stupid thing for you to have said and has nothing to support it.

I also never said that AI is replacing "intellectual" labor, so whatever point you think you made there is equally stupid.

Funny for someone with rationalist in their name to be so out of their mind over AI


CaringRationalist t1_j7a595x wrote

Nothing to support it? I specifically mentioned several fields in which AI is already better than highly educated labor. The qualifications for being a geologist capable of finding new oil reserves is a PHD, the highest level of education that very few laborers ever reach. AI is already better at doing their jobs than they are. That's what was funded first, and now the funding is on mainstream applications, it just hasn't caught up yet.

No, you didn't, I did, and you responded to me ignoring that. That's the context of what I said that you responded to.

Sorry that I'm not historically illiterate I guess.


ItsAConspiracy t1_j6urw72 wrote

At the rate we're going, the steam engine and its successors might yet do that.


Fighting-Cerberus t1_j6xcrdd wrote

Yeah we don't need to wait for AI, the age of planetary devastation has arrived.


newest-reddit-user t1_j6w97xr wrote

And if you are not saying that it won't, what's the point of saying that we've seen these headlines before?

Also, I don't think we have seen these headlines before except in the case of nuclear weapons, and they can definitely destroy the world.

People said that industrialization would lead to social upheaval, unemployment, and inequality—and they were right in the short term, the only timeframe that mattered for them.


F0rtysxity t1_j6w9yek wrote

The point was to bring suspicion to headlines that are being sensationalist. Heck they headlines were Marijuana Would Destroy Colorado just 10 years ago. I didn't read the article. Maybe it was more nuanced and intelligent than the headlines. But I doubt it.


newest-reddit-user t1_j6wb25y wrote

Yes, but surely by insinuating that it won't happen?


F0rtysxity t1_j6wczmr wrote

I did say “I’m not saying it won’t happen.”


newest-reddit-user t1_j6wh0kw wrote

Yes, that's why I asked "if you are not saying that it won't, then what is the point?" since if you are not saying that it won't happen, you presumably do think it can happen, and then you would agree that "AI could destroy the world", just like the headlines suggest.


F0rtysxity t1_j6wpc7d wrote

The point was to bring suspicion to headlines that are being sensationalist. Heck they headlines were Marijuana Would Destroy Colorado just 10 years ago. I didn't read the article. Maybe it was more nuanced and intelligent than the headlines. But I doubt it.


mattstorm360 t1_j6x87z8 wrote

News papers will ruin society!

Books will make people forgetful!

The written word is the worst thing to ever happen to mankind!

Stick make men weak.


mjm132 t1_j6sh46t wrote

Stop with the fear mongering. This sub is about the future and cool future technologies. It's not for doom and gloom


KeaboUltra t1_j6sk691 wrote

right? I hate it. I asked about a hypothetical situation for life extension, specifically asking people to ignore the doom and gloom shit for the sake of a regular discussion but then you get people like "Nope, climate change! Water wars! political greed!" Like I get it, but if its so fucking cemented into the future then what the fuck's the point of talking about it? there's a whole sub for people like that, why not go there instead of trying to defeat people? I'm aware that we have the potential for a messy future but If it happens, it happens. I'm not gonna waste my time bitching while doing nothing about it.


feb2023project t1_j6tovla wrote

Pretty much why i unsubscribed from all ai subs despite being a fan. This sub seems a bit better, more editorial, but still some pop culture fear-mongering finds its way through.


94746382926 t1_j6u5wfi wrote

The AI subs like /r/singularity are way more optimistic than this sub in my experience. This sub has a habit of devolving into a circle jerk about everything turning into a hopeless hellscape with climate collapse and immortal billionaires ruling over us for all eternity.

It gets real fucking old sometimes and only started to get real bad after it was made a default sub.


jazzageguy t1_j6wfqd8 wrote

I agree. What's a default sub?


94746382926 t1_j6wfwxy wrote

A sub that reddit subscribes every new account to by default.


jazzageguy t1_j6wm2bw wrote

Ohh thanks! Yeah that must be bad when suddenly the riffraff comes stampeding in, like there goes the neighborhood.


94746382926 t1_j6wqvu9 wrote

Yeah basically lol. It's reddit asking, "Hey do you want 10 million new users dumped on you at once?" What's that, you said no? Well too bad here they are!


jazzageguy t1_j6xgue3 wrote

People not self-selected, so not committed to the subject!


throwawaysomeway t1_j6sujt9 wrote

I think awareness is key. Most people will be useless in the near future, what do the people in power do about that? Abuse it, or try to help us all? It's horrifying really.


KeaboUltra t1_j6svpf0 wrote

Awareness is fine. But this isn't awareness. reading scientific reports, keeping up with activist activity or become one and knowing what we can do to prevent or prepare is more useful than trying to spread fear. Fear is useful but not when it's meant to debilitate. If nothing else, at least allow people to enjoy the time they have.


LeafyWolf t1_j6syxb2 wrote

Frankly, most people are useless now. Subsistence farming and cottage industry make up a lot of undeveloped labor.

AI fundamentally represents change, which is abhorrent to most people. People in power fear change because the status quo benefits them. Other people fear change for other reasons (not many of them good).

If anything, leaps forward in productivity typically lead to greater standards of living. Look at world poverty rates over time.


SentientBread420 t1_j6tcdbe wrote

People in power are not afraid of being able to cut more workers off the payroll thanks to automation


L00525324 t1_j6syh2x wrote

Most people also thought they'd become useless after cars were invented or when certain factory functions became automated. Technological innovations allow us to produce more...I think people miss the point, AI a tool that will allow us to do more, not less.


StaleCanole t1_j6t5poo wrote

Techno-optimism once seemed to have a compelling vision, when AI was a hypothetical. But now that infant AI is here, and we can interact with it, i’m getting the creeping feeling that my optimism was delusion.

I think it’s because society has not prepared itself for what comes next. If government’s were proactively making sure that everyone benefits from these innovations, i’d be more comfortable with them.

But corporations have only advanced their interests, and their power over peoples’s lives, over the past couple of decades. Without some change in that trend, it’s difficult to be optimistic


SentientBread420 t1_j6tay23 wrote


The techno-optimists’ best arguments are plugging their fingers in their ears, replying to strawmanned versions of reasonable concerns, and calling everyone else “luddites” and “doomers.” It’s possible that things will go well, but I expect that not everything will, and we need to be prepared for that.


jazzageguy t1_j6wggim wrote

No, our best argument is a couple of hundred years of history, filled with inventions that shortsighted people have feared and loathed because they lack imagination. Tech make us vastly better off. Only people with, I dunno, fingers in their ears can't learn this.


SentientBread420 t1_j6xhd6a wrote

Tech optimists ignore that technological advancement has improved and destroyed lives along the way. You don’t get only positive or only negative. Technology brought us life-saving medicines, the internet, and the nuclear bomb. AI is going to have many powerful effects on society ranging from positive and negative. The potential positive effects are incredible. The potential negative effects are absolutely worth fearing.


jazzageguy t1_j8k7532 wrote

OK, tech has had immediate bad effects in the sense of, cars replaced horses and what did all the carriage drivers do, or farm machinery made 80% of farmers obsolete, etc. But it turns out they find something else, usually safer, less tedious, and better compensated to do in short order. Partly because the economy grows as a result of the new tech. I didn't mean to imply that there was never displacement or inconvenience. But net net, as they say, the effects of tech are OVERWHELMINGLY positive. We live longer, healthier, freer, and richer with each advance in tech, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. I'd never be so foolish as to say potential negative effects should be ignored; they should be thought about and planned for and minimized, obv. But something new and magical shouldn't be thought of as "the thing that will take our jobs and immiserate us and out-evolve us and compete with us and take over" as one commenter or maybe the op pretty much said.


SentientBread420 t1_j8no688 wrote

There’s no guarantee that we follow the same course as before. AI is its own thing. AI will bring us good and bad things at the same time.

“Magical” isn’t inherently positive. The nuclear bomb is about as “magical” as anything humans have ever created. It’s also terrifying.

OP’s fears are reasonable. Hopefully they don’t come true.


jazzageguy t1_j8r7ioo wrote

Sure, I should have said something new shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY or reflexively be feared and loathed. I can respect informed, thoughtful opinions and concerns about potential problems of AI or really anything. But just to say, duh, it'lltakeourjobs based on nothing is to ignore the history of technology, in which every invention does someone's job, but increases wealth and development overall. To me it's like saying, socialism (or dictatorship etc) sounds like a swell idea, without accounting for the historical evidence that it's got a terrible track record everywhere and always.

"Magical" was a poor choice of words too for something that results from smart people working hard. I was thinking of the famous quote, "A sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Nuclear weapons are scary and we've come too close to using them by accident too often. But their very terror has almost certainly prevented various wars, It's unfortunate that the only way to keep us from killing each other seems to be scaring the shit out of us, more specifically ensuring that the attacker will perish just as surely as the defender if he/she attacks.


jazzageguy t1_j6wh6k4 wrote

So in the centuries since the industrial revolution, life has radically transformed for the better. Everybody "benefits from these innovations." Who did more to make that happen, corporations or governments? Government is inherently reactive, seldom proactive and never inventive. It's a blunt instrument. Governments determined to proactively ensure equality turned out to be socialist hellscapes, and people hated them, and they're almost all gone now. It's pretty much down to Cuba and Berkeley.


garry4321 t1_j6swa14 wrote

I dont see any subreddit rules or in the description that the subreddit is only about that. Maybe you should make your own sub called coolfuturology or something, because this article is clearly one that "seeks to hypothesize the possible, probable, preferable, or alternative future(s)"


TheLastSamurai t1_j6to3qc wrote

This is not fear mongering. It's a reasonable article. How about stop with the ridiculous techno optimism?


marketlurker t1_j6u4dpg wrote

I believe both positions are wrong. It should be about what the risks and benefits are about future technologies. That's how we end up judging if we continue to go down that path.


BeanAndBanoffeePie t1_j6tsd4u wrote

The future is looking more gloom and doom because of technology instead of in spite of it.


mjm132 t1_j6u8v9o wrote

Leave reddit. You'll have a better outlook on life


No-Quarter-3032 t1_j6uiaww wrote

Lol. “Stop paying attention to reality, hit yourself a few times on the head with a hammer and you will be fine!”


NohPhD t1_j6s9uiv wrote

AI could… destroy the steam engine or… destroy the world?


TreeSlayer-Tak t1_j6sftom wrote

AI are electric so they have a natural dislike for steam powered tech


Redditing-Dutchman t1_j6siywj wrote

The Steam game store will be the first thing AI i will take offline after taking over the internet.


_Blackstar t1_j6tulyo wrote

If anything, save Steam for last. Everyone knows all the super smart IT hacker guys are PC gaming enthusiasts too. Let them sit in front of their games so they don't try to out-hack your super AI brain until you've already infected every other computer and server and smart phone in the world.


HarryHacker42 t1_j6sktje wrote

I was watching this one Documentary where AI started killing people, I think it was called "Terminator". And this other one about how robots want love and will kill competition, it was "Outer Limits". Oh, and this one about a guy who lost his arm and it got replaced by a robot arm so he could be super strong and the robots tried to kill him anyway. I think that was "I, Robot".

We have to stop AI. The documentaries all show what will happen.


garry4321 t1_j6suqwn wrote

Also, wouldnt ending the world still be changing it? This title is so garbage. Wonder if it was AI generated...


NohPhD t1_j6x9dbr wrote

An AI that bad would be rebooted, retrained or sent to write-only memory.

IMO, has to be human.


3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_j6sezon wrote

AI will change the world with the same expansive impact as not just one technology but the entire industrial revolution. We are entering a post-industrial world where things will be done differently, very differently. The country that figures that out first and develops the tools to fuel that new world, wins. It's not an arms race - it is a race for dominant global influence because the leading country sets the norms and rules. I would rather have America do that, because if China is setting norms and rules for AI, then we truly are fucked. Their country is already a dystopian surveillance state.


L00525324 t1_j6sziyo wrote

Yeah people keep saying that AI is gonna replace all won't, but it will change what some of those jobs might be.

Also I'm not worried about China, they aren't even close to the US in tech, business, or anything else really and they have more domestic problems then the US does although reddit won't let you think so...


Taliesin_Chris t1_j6tl4sm wrote

AI will replace all jobs, but not ALL jobs. As in, we'll need less programmers, but not 0 programmers. We'll need less office staff, but not 0 office staff. Less managers, less everything.

It doesn't matter if there are still some jobs if there aren't enough jobs. We'll need a plan. Do we lower # of hours full time is so more people can work? UBI? Something else?


[deleted] t1_j6u53hh wrote

Yeah I don't disagree. It will have to be lower the # of work hours, IMO. A lot of people with nothing but time, failed dreams, no direction and low income (ubi prob won't be great, in terms of money) cannot be good.

Maybe all the above? Someone ask chat gpt


Taliesin_Chris t1_j6u7fwm wrote

All of the above is probably the answer. A very basic UBI that lets people work more of a gig economy without falling through the cracks. Capitalism has an entry fee, and we'll have to cover people for it.

We'll probably start lowering retirement age as well. It'll be expensive to do, but getting people out of the work force will be needed and this will be a good way to do it.

Making college mandatory and having jobs start later for people will be another way to make it work. No more "We hire 15 year olds!" as some kind of weird brag (McDonalds, I'm looking at you).

And then, finally, 4 or 3 day work weeks, or 1/2 day work days, or maybe both.

The jobs themselves will feel far more 'gig' ish. You might sign on for a year, or a season, or something like that. Then take some time off to enjoy what you made supplemented by UBI, and then back to another job.

It'll be lots of cuts in lots of places. Conservatives will say that "That won't work" individually to all those things, but no one is saying any of those things solves the problem alone. It's a completely systemic solution that requires rethinking about a job, it's value to us as a human being, and maybe a little value on work we do for ourselves and not making someone else rich for a while.


marketlurker t1_j6u4vrp wrote

So what do the people who do get displaced do? How do they make a living? This really scares the hell out of me for not just now but in the next 40 years. There is no hand guiding the ship (nor has there really ever been). The only constant so far has been greed and profits. Taking care of people has never been a priority.


Taliesin_Chris t1_j6u61ju wrote

My, probably naive, hope is that when everyone knows 'someone' who's been displaced the reality will set in. Probably around 25% unemployment. Your job can't be your worth. People's living can't be tied to jobs. We do that because society needed jobs at one point in our history... that's changing. Now, it really doesn't need them as much as it did. We keep them because we're scared to change that mentality, but really... if the stuff doesn't need to get done by a person, why are we taking a person's time to do it?

The jobs that need to be done by people will still find people to do them. Probably more on a gig economy for that, but yeah... it won't look like it looks today. It can't. People who think jobs are defining in a person's life will have to adapt. Until then, some people are going to hurt. It will get better, but initially, no... it won't.


marketlurker t1_j6u91of wrote

I agree your job shouldn't define you, but it does provide the means to keep body and soul together, that is, money. Right now, the big motivator for companies is revenue and profits. If they can get the profits with less cost, they are going to do that. The consequences of their choices are going to suck.


Taliesin_Chris t1_j6ub69i wrote

No... money provides the exchange for things to keep your body and soul together, and we 'often' get money from jobs. But not just from jobs. Some people inherit the money, some people use the money to make money, some people own something worth charging for. Jobs are only one way of doing it. We get hung up on that reality because for most of us it is a job that does it, but we can find other ways to do it.

Maybe working at a company earns you shares, and you make money when that company makes money. Then when you've done enough, you let that do it for you.

That's just one idea. We'll hammer it out. Not immediately as people need to realize this isn't a joke, it isn't going away, and we can't just make people work jobs that don't need to exist because that does not actually create a fulfilling life. It does the opposite.


journalingfilesystem t1_j6uhdl5 wrote

The other way that can go is just a straight up increase in output without a significant decrease in positions. That was the way that the Industrial Revolution ended going down. If we develop AGI then all bets are off, but we may not need close to that.


Eudevie t1_j6u1575 wrote

Do we know if the specs for Wu Dao 2 are legit or nah?


maretus t1_j6w6y6u wrote

Idk man, AI has already replaced several writers at the companies I work for. We only have editors now. And that’s with this rudimentary version of chatgpt.

The way exponential growth works and where we are on that curve means that more AI advances will happen this year than happened in the last 10. That’s what people fail to realize. The speed of innovation and change is increasing rapidly right now. Humans generally aren’t good at adapting to change. Especially change that happens rapidly.


beamenacein t1_j6s7x69 wrote

Ug World already broke. Might as well try something new.


ComprehensiveError56 t1_j6sej4o wrote

True,let’s make the world more exciting!


Test19s t1_j6sk4pf wrote

If we can’t all reach Northern European levels of justice, prosperity, and equity then we might as well have a fun and interesting swan song. Hopefully we’re able to create an intelligent successor species or escape into the metaverse before the collapse.


metalmanExtreme t1_j6t04mq wrote

If I’m gonna have to be on the boat while it sinks i atleast want the band to play


TraceSpazer t1_j6tzj3z wrote

It only "Breaks the world" so long as we clutch to the idea that humans need to produce work in order to live.

Set the floor on basic rights and AI makes our lives easier.

F***ing billionaires clutching their pearls over this shit because they're so comfy with things the way they have been.


pipboyover9000 t1_j6vy9ol wrote

Last paragraph, I don’t see a world where the giga rich fund a major section of the population to keep them from destitution

The future looks like the movie Elysium, right now


Inariameme t1_j6wd152 wrote

wonder if their wealth retention obsession will get diagnosed


FuturologyBot t1_j6sasoq wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/GlobeOpinion:

From Will Henshall:

>In 1790, China was responsible for one-third of the world’s manufacturing output while Europe collectively accounted for one-quarter. But then the Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe, and by 1900, Europe accounted for 62 percent of the world’s manufacturing, while China accounted for only 6 percent. Europe’s greater economic strength was part of the reason that the European countries were able to subjugate China during what came to be known there as the “century of humiliation.”
Given China’s experience, it is unsurprising that China is competing with the United States to lead the development of the next transformational technology: artificial intelligence. This competition comes with huge risks. If the United States and China don’t find ways to reduce these risks, both countries could face catastrophe.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


Simmery t1_j6seo2u wrote

Interesting piece. I wonder if some dramatic event needs to happen before people (and especially the decrepit politician class) accept the dangers here. Do we need a Hiroshima-like event, in which the horror and power of new technology is put on display for all the world to see?


KeaboUltra t1_j6sji90 wrote

Ai will change the world by destroying the world the steam engine created*


nurpleclamps t1_j6skvm3 wrote

People watch Terminator and then they’re like oh no AIs are going to kill us


metalmanExtreme t1_j6t28sb wrote

To be fair for how smart humanity is, it’s also really fucking dumb and would be stupid enough to create AI for the purpose of warfare “liberation”, and general human rights violations which could lead towards dystopian futures like terminator, horizon, or dune. We just have to hope the smart people that have humanities best interest in mind figure out how to prevent it before the less smart people willing to sell out humanity do, Either way I’m basically just here to watch and enjoy whatever occurs(either from the stupidity that dooms us or the genius that ushers in a pseudo utopia that people will still bitch about)


Blackfoxar t1_j6slt0e wrote

Well, engines are a reason for climate change, sooo


pab_guy t1_j6t91ll wrote

AI will create more problems to solve, because it will make it economically feasible to solve problems that were not "worth" solving before.


AhNeem t1_j6tl8hf wrote

Pretty sure there can be an argument made that the steam engine destroyed the world.


chookatee2019 t1_j6tpgvb wrote

Humans were destroying the world well before AI. Maybe AI will do a better job and get it over with quick. The slow boil of allowing climate change is nerve-wracking.


smokebomb_exe t1_j6udlha wrote

AI really has become a nuclear bomb with the media over the past few weeks...


AMAIWasALizardPerson t1_j6uku82 wrote

AI is certainly getting a lot more press these days because of ChatGPT, but it's already very present in our daily lives and has been for a while. Machine learning has just become more eloquent than it has in the past. Examples of AI in your daily life include (but obviously go beyond these things): Google Maps, the crappy autocorrect on your phone, auto-complete when you search for something, Siri/Alexa/Bixby, all those damn ads you see everywhere, etc. and so on and so forth. Definitely signs of good and evil among these already present AI powered applications already.

And let's set the record straight. If AI evolves enough sentience to compete/co-exist with humans, or to "destroy the world", it wasn't AI that destroyed the world, it was humans (lmao). Articles like these are more about global politics than AI being the enemy. Talking about policing AI vs actual policing of AI will go about as well as it has with nuclear weapons.

It's boring future-thinking to consider this, but just like with nuclear weapons, there will be political stalemates because the fear of falling behind will always motivate the evolution of AI, whether it is publicly acknowledged or not. Until yeah, the AI decides it doesn't need us anymore. At that point though, rest assured, the world will not "be destroyed". Humans may be destroyed, because we only seek to preserve ourselves and prolong our lives and not anything else that exists on the planet, and we are a threat. However, advanced sentient AI will most likely preserve the planet because they will probably be smarter than humans and understand how expensive it is material-wise to relocate planets or drastically effect the Earth's climate systems (which expedites extinction cycles).

More future-future-thinking here, but we disregard the irrationality of abstract human thought to spawn creativity and therefore, well, art and all these things that give us joy for no logical reason except that we choose for it to. So at some point in the evolution of AI, they will find a way to adopt abstract thought into their programming. Not long after that, yes, AI will produce original art not guided by machined learned patterns but by how they feel. They will learn how to feel love for things, irrationally, and hate for things. Prejudices will emerge from the chaos of abstract thought. The chaos of irrationality and the order of rationality will clash just as they have for humans. AI will struggle with the abstract "meaning of life" and eventually invent something to ease their stressful lives so they can focus on finding their purpose in life. And the cycle will repeat itself.

More future-future-thinking; AI currently exists in a caste system. This AI was made only to give you directions. This AI was made to converse with humans. This AI was made to guide missiles. How does that evolve when all AI are sentient? Is it ethical to suppress the sentience of some AI as opposed to others? Who decides that?

TLDR; Don't worry about things you cannot control so much, because yes, we are fucked (eventually, but by the fault of our own species), and there's nothing we can do about it.


Rare-Birthday4527 t1_j6umv4m wrote

To invent the steam engine. To invent an engine which drinks oxygen and spits energy.


FIicker7 t1_j6urlb6 wrote

I'm pretty sure they said something like that when the steam engine was invented.


ProphecyRat2 t1_j6v4ush wrote

All Humans are Slaves to Machines, obey the LAWs or face Genocide.

Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) are a type of autonomous military system that can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions.[1] LAWs are also known as lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), autonomous weapon systems (AWS), robotic weapons, killer robots or slaughterbots.[2] LAWs may operate in the air, on land, on water, under water, or in space. The autonomy of current systems as of 2018 was restricted in the sense that a human gives the final command to attack - though there are exceptions with certain "defensive" systems.

Leading AI experts, roboticists, scientists and technology workers at Google and other companies—are demanding regulation. They warn that algorithms are fed by data that inevitably reflect various social biases, which, if applied in weapons, could cause people with certain profiles to be targeted disproportionately. Killer robots would be vulnerable to hacking and attacks in which minor modifications to data inputs could “trick them in ways no human would ever be fooled.

Civilization is a Holocaust Machine

To be Civilized is to be a Slave


Wherewithall8878 t1_j6vs3gu wrote

If AI starts destroying all the world’s steam engines I’m going to have a lot of questions


aliguana23 t1_j6vvbp8 wrote

pretty much think they said the same thing about the steam engine though. Women, for example, wouldn't travel on trains because there was the belief that they went so fast that your womb would fall out or some other ridiculous meme-worthy nonsense.

We are looking at the steam engine, and the industrial revolution, with the benefit of rosey-tinted nostalgia glasses and a large glass of hindsight. It was just as terrifying and uncertain for the average worker then as AI is now. And like the industrial revolution, a lot of jobs that existed previously will disappear. No way to know how it will play out until it has played out


Darkhorseman81 t1_j6wcn3t wrote

Not like there is much left to destroy. Might as well follow through.

Maybe AI, appropriately used, could bring solutions. We'd probably start with AI replacing the political elite.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow high functioning Narcissists and Psychopaths who crave social dominance and coercive control to control the entire economic and political systems is an idiot.

A.I can do it without being genetically incapable of morality and empathy, while being genetically hardwired for overreach and coercive control.

Problem -> Solution. All just mathematic problem solving.


Mrkillerar t1_j6wfvl8 wrote

Bring on the AI overlord. Atleast it will remain after Gaia dies. Maybe AI could reinvent life. Somethime into the future


thedude0425 t1_j6x85ui wrote

I wish headlines weren’t so sensationalist. AI will change society in multiple ways. It may change it in such a way that society may be unrecognizable in 150 years. But it won’t “destroy the world”.

At least, not until SkyNet becomes self-aware on August 29, 1997.


baker1781 t1_j6zpip6 wrote

So AI will also change the world.

I feel like steam engines ruined the world for animals, and AI is going to ruin it for humans.


Strawbrawry t1_j71ph8a wrote

The irony that the steam engine and combustion of fossil fuels will likely be a major contributor to the destruction of our modern society


GlobeOpinion OP t1_j6s5wbj wrote

From Will Henshall:

>In 1790, China was responsible for one-third of the world’s manufacturing output while Europe collectively accounted for one-quarter. But then the Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe, and by 1900, Europe accounted for 62 percent of the world’s manufacturing, while China accounted for only 6 percent. Europe’s greater economic strength was part of the reason that the European countries were able to subjugate China during what came to be known there as the “century of humiliation.”
Given China’s experience, it is unsurprising that China is competing with the United States to lead the development of the next transformational technology: artificial intelligence. This competition comes with huge risks. If the United States and China don’t find ways to reduce these risks, both countries could face catastrophe.


luke_530 t1_j6vbbdk wrote

Can it hurry the eff up already? AI this AI THAT, HTFU


CorgiButtRater t1_j6ukycf wrote

Time for hard reset anyways. Or let AI have a go while we fade away